Petechiae in Hanging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Petechiae, one of the classic signs of asphyxia, are thought to be more frequently observed in cases of hanging where part of the body is supporting the victim's weight, ie, cases of incomplete hanging. However, there is very little evidence-based medicine to support this claim. The present study is intended to evaluate the relationship between petechiae and the type of hanging (complete vs. incomplete). Furthermore, several other variables were analyzed to determine if they contribute significantly to the presence of petechiae. An 8.5-year retrospective study of 206 cases of death by hanging reviewed autopsy reports for the presence of petechiae. For each case, the following information was also compiled: gender and age, height and weight, body mass index, the type of hanging (complete or incomplete suspension), the type of ligature used (narrow or wide), and whether or not the victim had received cardiopulmonary resuscitation maneuvers. Statistical analysis revealed that the incidence was higher among incomplete hanging victims compared with cases of complete suspension and that the incidence of petechiae varied inversely with the height of the victims. The other factors were not shown to contribute significantly to the presence of petechiae.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".